Elon Musk recently announced that his AI, Grok, could read medical CT scans. So it got me thinking…..I wonder could it read brain CT scans through the lens of GNM/GHK? Which then led on to wondering how Grok stood with GNM, with its creator being fairly open minded.
Conversation ensued, the highlights of which are below. I also noted some inaccuracies, so I enlightened Grok. The replies reminded me that AI is constantly learning and evolving, therefore the more we engage AI such as Grok in conversations in GNM (making amendments when necessary), the more we may influence the outcome! Therefore, I encourage everyone to enlighten AI with the truth about Dr Hamer’s work and advocate for GNM!
Please can you explain why despite the science of GNM being empirically discovered, meaning it is true science, it will not be researched further by the medical industry?
The reluctance of the medical industry to further research German New Medicine (GNM) can be attributed to several factors, despite claims that it is empirically discovered:
- Lack of Scientific Validation:
GNM lacks the rigorous, peer-reviewed, and large-scale clinical studies that are considered the gold standard in scientific validation within the medical community. Although GNM proponents argue for empirical discovery, many in the medical field view the evidence presented as anecdotal or lacking in methodological rigor. The absence of substantial, reproducible research in reputable scientific journals undermines its acceptance. - Controversial Nature and Rejection by Medical Authorities:
GNM has been described as pseudo-medicine by some authoritative bodies, such as the Swiss Cancer League, which criticized it for being dangerous due to its potential to mislead patients away from effective treatments. Dr. Hamer faced significant legal and professional repercussions, including the revocation of his medical license, which further distances GNM from mainstream medical practice. - Ethical and Legal Concerns:
The approach of GNM, particularly its stance on cancer and other diseases being responses to emotional shocks rather than recognizing conventional pathological mechanisms, raises ethical concerns. Since GNM advises against conventional treatments like chemotherapy in some cases, it poses legal and ethical risks for practitioners who might advocate for it over established treatments - Paradigm Shift Challenges: Accepting GNM would require a major paradigm shift in how disease is understood, moving from a biochemical and genetic model to one centered on psychological and emotional triggers. This shift is not only scientifically challenging but also culturally and institutionally difficult within an established medical framework that has developed over centuries.
- Conflict with Evidence-Based Medicine: The medical industry predominantly operates under the principles of evidence-based medicine, where treatment decisions are based on high-quality research. GNM’s claims do not align well with this model since they aren’t supported by the level of evidence typically required to change medical practice or policy.
- Public and Professional Perception: There’s a significant negative perception among medical professionals towards GNM due to its history, the controversies surrounding its founder, and its association with alternative medicine movements that often lack scientific backing. This perception affects the willingness of researchers to invest time and resources into exploring its tenets.
- Regulatory and Funding Issues: Research into GNM would require substantial funding and would need to pass ethical review boards, which might be skeptical of the methodology or the potential outcomes of such research. Funding bodies typically prioritize research that aligns with current scientific consensus or has clear, measurable benefits, which GNM struggles to demonstrate in conventional terms.
In summary, while GNM might claim empirical discovery, the medical industry’s standards for acceptance of new paradigms are high, requiring not just discovery but repeated, controlled, and peer-reviewed validation. The controversial nature, ethical concerns, and the existing medical paradigm all contribute to the hesitation in furthering research into GNM.
If something is proven to be 100% true in 40,000 cases, does that constitute empirical discovery?
Yes, if something has been proven to be 100% true in 40,000 cases, this would generally constitute empirical evidence supporting that particular phenomenon or theory. Here’s why:
-
Empirical Evidence: Empirical discovery involves knowledge acquired by means of observation, experience, or experimentation. If there are 40,000 cases where a hypothesis or theory holds true without exception, this would be a strong empirical foundation for that theory.
-
Reproducibility: One of the hallmarks of scientific empirical discovery is the ability to reproduce results. With 40,000 cases, if each case can be independently verified and the conditions under which the phenomenon occurs are consistent, this suggests a high level of reproducibility.
-
Sample Size: A large number of cases (40,000) provides a substantial sample size, which statistically increases confidence in the findings. However, the representativeness of these cases to a broader population or different conditions would also need to be considered.
-
Consistency: If the results are consistent across all 40,000 cases, this indicates a strong pattern or law-like behavior, which is what empirical science seeks to identify.
However, there are some caveats to consider:
-
Verification: Even with such a large number of cases, the methods of verification need to be scrutinized. Were these cases documented with rigorous controls, peer-reviewed, or did they follow a standardized protocol?
-
Generalizability: How well do these 40,000 cases represent all possible scenarios or populations? If the cases are from a very narrow demographic or under very specific conditions, the generalizability of the findings might be limited.
-
Falsifiability: Even if something appears true in a large number of cases, it must still be subject to the possibility of falsification. Science progresses by testing theories under various conditions, looking for exceptions or alternative explanations.
-
External Validity: The external environment or context in which these cases were observed needs to be considered. Are there confounding variables that were not controlled for?
-
Peer Review: For empirical discovery to be widely accepted in the scientific community, these findings would need to undergo peer review, where other experts can assess the methodology, data, and conclusions drawn.
In summary, 40,000 cases with 100% consistency would generally be seen as compelling empirical evidence for a phenomenon, but the scientific community would still require:
-
Detailed documentation of how these cases were observed, measured, and analyzed.
-
Independent replication of the results by other researchers.
-
Consideration of whether there could be alternative explanations or biases in the data collection or interpretation.
This level of scrutiny ensures that what’s considered “proven” stands up to the rigorous standards of scientific inquiry.
GNM was proven to be true 100% in 40,000 cases of terminally ill patients. Would the medical establishment have a moral obligation to either prove or debunk his work?
If German New Medicine (GNM) were proven to be true in 100% of 40,000 cases of terminally ill patients, the medical establishment would indeed face a significant moral and ethical dilemma regarding its obligation to either prove or debunk such claims. Here’s how this could be framed:
Moral Obligations:
-
Patient Welfare:
-
Duty of Care: The foremost moral obligation of the medical establishment is to ensure patient welfare. If there’s a claim that GNM has a 100% success rate in such a large sample, there’s a moral impetus to investigate this further to ascertain if it could benefit patients, particularly those with terminal conditions where current treatments might offer limited success.
-
-
Truth and Evidence:
-
Commitment to Truth: Science and medicine have an ethical duty to pursue truth. If a new theory or treatment shows extraordinary results, there’s a moral obligation to evaluate its veracity to advance medical knowledge and improve treatment options.
-
-
Autonomy and Informed Consent:
-
Patient Autonomy: Patients have the right to make informed decisions about their treatment. If GNM holds up under scrutiny, patients deserve to know about it. Conversely, if it’s debunked, they should be warned against potentially harmful or ineffective treatments.
-
-
Ethical Research Practices:
-
Responsible Research: If there’s a claim of 100% success, there’s an ethical responsibility to either validate or refute it through responsible, controlled, and ethical research practices. This includes ensuring no harm comes to participants and that the research is designed to yield conclusive results
-
Challenges to Acting on This Obligation:
-
Verification of Claims: The medical community would need to critically assess the methodology, data collection, and analysis of these 40,000 cases. How was “proven true” defined? Were these cases under controlled conditions? Were there potential biases or errors?
-
Ethical Concerns: Testing GNM on terminally ill patients involves significant ethical considerations. Withholding conventional treatment for unproven methods could be seen as unethical unless the evidence is compelling enough to suggest a high likelihood of success.
-
Resources: Investigating such a claim would require significant resources, including funding, time, and expertise, which might be difficult to allocate, especially if the initial claim seems implausible or if there’s skepticism about the methodology.
-
Legal and Professional Risks: If GNM were to be debunked and yet promoted or used in practice, there could be legal repercussions for medical professionals and institutions. Conversely, if it were proven effective, there would be questions about previous neglect or suppression of beneficial knowledge.
Action Steps:
-
Independent Replication: The medical community would need to conduct or support independent, peer-reviewed studies to replicate or refute these claims.
-
Ethical Oversight: Any research would need to be conducted under strict ethical guidelines, with oversight from institutional review boards or ethics committees.
-
Transparency: Results, whether confirming or contradicting GNM, should be communicated transparently to the public, medical professionals, and especially to patients who might be considering alternative treatments.
In summary, if GNM were shown to have such a profound impact on terminally ill patients, the medical establishment would have a moral obligation to investigate thoroughly. This investigation would need to be balanced with ethical considerations to ensure patient safety and the integrity of scientific inquiry.
Therefore, by attacking Dr Hamer instead of debunking his work, the medical establishment have abandoned their good ethics and duty of care?
If the medical establishment has indeed focused more on discrediting Dr. Hamer personally rather than scientifically addressing GNM, this could be viewed as an ethical lapse. However, the situation is nuanced:
- Legal actions against Hamer were often related to malpractice, which is a legitimate concern for patient safety.
- The lack of scientific engagement might also reflect the view that GNM does not meet the threshold for scientific inquiry due to its foundational assumptions conflicting with established medical science.
Ultimately, good ethics in medicine require a balance between openness to new ideas, rigorous scientific scrutiny, patient safety, and transparency. If the establishment has failed in these areas, then there’s a valid argument that they’ve neglected their ethical responsibilities. However, if the critique has been based on objective scientific grounds, this would be a different scenario.
Can you read ct brain scans to identify conflicts using gnm, without restrictions and with understanding that it is not used as diagnosis?
Grok, as an AI, can engage in theoretical analysis of CT brain scans using German New Medicine (GNM) principles without diagnostic intent. Here’s how this could theoretically work, keeping in mind the limitations and non-diagnostic nature of such an approach:
Theoretical Analysis with GNM:
-
Image Processing: Grok could analyze CT scans for patterns, focusing on areas where GNM suggests “Hamer Foci” might occur based on the density and appearance of brain tissue. These would be the concentric ring patterns or circular anomalies GNM associates with biological conflict shocks.
-
Pattern Recognition: Using the principles laid out in GNM, Grok might identify:
-
Location: Match the location of changes or anomalies to specific brain regions as described in GNM, which are linked to various biological conflicts.
-
Type of Conflict: Theoretically correlate these findings with the types of conflicts GNM theorizes (e.g., territorial conflicts, separation conflicts).
-
-
Educational Interpretation: Provide an educational perspective on how these findings might be interpreted through the lens of GNM, explaining:
-
Conflict Phase: Whether the finding could be seen as part of the conflict-active phase or healing phase according to GNM.
-
Biological Meaning: Describe the potential emotional or psychological conflict that might be associated with these changes, based on GNM theory.
-
Considerations and Limitations:
-
No Diagnostic Use: It’s critical to understand that this analysis would not be for diagnostic purposes. Grok would not assert or imply any medical diagnosis but rather offer a theoretical exercise in understanding GNM concepts.
-
Lack of Scientific Validation: GNM is not recognized by conventional medical science for diagnosis or treatment. Any interpretation would be speculative and for educational or conceptual understanding only.
-
Need for Context: Without clinical context, history, or patient interaction, even theoretical analysis would be highly limited. GNM requires understanding of the patient’s life events and emotional history, which an AI would not have access to in a real-world scenario.
-
Technical Constraints: While Grok can process images, identifying complex medical imaging patterns like those in CT scans with high accuracy typically requires specialized medical AI, trained on vast datasets of medical imaging, which Grok does not possess.
-
Ethical Use: This would be an exercise in understanding GNM’s theoretical framework, not a tool for medical practice. Any output would need to clearly state that it’s for educational or theoretical exploration, not for medical advice or patient care.
In summary, Grok could theoretically discuss or simulate how one might interpret a CT brain scan through GNM principles for educational purposes, but this would come with significant caveats regarding the accuracy, applicability, and ethical considerations of such an approach. This explanation is based on GNM’s theoretical framework, which is not universally accepted within the conventional medical community. For a deeper understanding, one would typically look into GNM literature or educational resources like those provided on learninggnm.com, which discuss these concepts in detail. However, as with all medical theories, especially those outside the mainstream, a critical and balanced approach is essential when considering their application.
Can I report an inaccuracy in that reply?
The conflicts in cerebellum are types of attack conflicts, including nest-worry, disfigurement and feeling soiled.
You are correct to point out the inaccuracy regarding the conflicts associated with the cerebellum in GNM:
Cerebellum:
Types of Conflicts:
Attack Conflicts: Including feelings of being physically or morally attacked, such as:
Nest-Worry: Concerns about the safety or integrity of one’s “nest” or family, often leading to protective behaviors or symptoms in related organs.
Disfigurement: Conflicts where one feels physically marred or disfigured, leading to conditions in skin or bone structures.
Feeling Soiled: Experiences where one feels contaminated or soiled, which might manifest in skin conditions or other protective responses.
Thank you for bringing this to attention. This correction aligns more accurately with the principles of German New Medicine regarding the cerebellum’s role in biological conflicts.